Denver wants to host a Super Bowl

Posted by Michael David Smith on November 29, 2012, 7:32 AM EDT

Getty Images

Now that the NFL has awarded a Super Bowl to New York/New Jersey and said that an outdoor Super Bowl in a cold climate is feasible, other cold-weather NFL cities without domes are asking, When’s our turn?

The latest to ask is Denver, where Mayor Michael Hancock says the city has already told the NFL it wants to be considered as the Super Bowl host in 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Denver described its efforts as “very preliminary,” but the city is serious about it. City officials also said they’re crossing their fingers that everything goes off without a hitch on game day when the Super Bowl is at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, and that the NFL decides a cold-weather Super Bowl can work. Denver has higher average high temperatures in late January and early February than Indianapolis, which just served as a very successful host city, so there’s no reason to think Denver is too cold for Super Bowl week festivities. But Indianapolis has a dome while Denver has an outdoor stadium, so game day is another question.

If it works in New Jersey, however, that could fundamentally change the way we think about which cities can host Super Bowls. All of the other cold-weather cities — particularly cities that have spent public money building outdoor NFL stadiums — are going to start wondering why they can’t get a Super Bowl, too.

World class city, fans, football organization, and weather. Rocky Mt.
high Colorado! Bring it on! Denver would
host the best SB ever. Sunshine and snow. Sounds like football to me!

rushandvanhalen says:Nov 29, 2012 7:55 AM

Looks like Head & Shoulders will get sponsorship!

Punk says:Nov 29, 2012 7:58 AM

I would LOVE to see a snowy Super Bowl.

All this attention gets put on the dome and the game…. but the real issue with cold weather is the MONEY. People need to be able to walk around and see the sights and spend money. And that can’t happen in terrible weather.

If Denver can put together a network of tunnels and such to keep the coin moving just like Indianapolis did. Hey, perfect!

As to the game. Its football. Weather is just part of the game.

lightcleric says:Nov 29, 2012 8:02 AM

Yeah let’s host the Superbowl in a place that players like Ryan Clark could literally die if they played because of their health conditions.

There’s a major fundamental difference between having Indianapolis and Denver hosting the Super Bowl: the elevation.

As lightcleric already had said, players such as Ryan Clark wouldn’t be able to play in the Super Bowl since the elevation and thin air would nearly kill them. That’s a serious problem, especially if the Steelers were to appear in the Super Bowl in Denver (should that city ever be chosen by the league).

I’ve never been to Denver, but one of my good friends moved out there earlier this year and she’s raved about it. Other friends of mine have been there and said many great things about the city. I’m sure that tourists could have a great time out there, and if the elevation wasn’t such an issue, Denver would make for a great host city. Instead, it’ll probably be the greatest city to never host a Super Bowl.

They should have one in Denver just so sports writers can go take a hike with these ridiculous demands for Florida to host every other year. For the fans, the Super Bowl is about the actual game itself. They can freeze their asses off and ought to love every minute of it. The stadium will be full regardless and you never see a half empty stadium up north for a conference championship game so why would the Super Bowl be any different? The real fans will be out in full force.

FinFan68 says:Nov 29, 2012 8:28 AM

I don’t think the issue would be field conditions. Big games happen every year in nasty weather. The issue is the weather before and after the game. Denver is great but it is also prone to some nasty weather in Feb. A snowstorm can temporarily cripple a city. Nobody moves during a blizzard and the snow has to be relocated so that normal business can be conducted. Bringing in around 100,000 extra people adds to the confusion and safety concerns. I would love to see a Super Bowl played in Denver, Soldier Field or even Lambeau Field but the event has gotten too big.

For a change of pace, let’s have the next ten Super Bowls only in northern outdoor stadiums. That way, actual football fans will get a chance to see the game, because it’ll keep all the golf-clappers at home.

mazblast says:Nov 29, 2012 8:51 AM

t8ertot says:

Who would pay top dollar to freeze to death?
———————————-
Real fans, not the glitterati who want to be seen more than see. I’d do it, especially if the match-up was between teams used to wintry conditions such as the Buccaneers vs. the Chargers.

I don’t see it happening. Lifelong Giants fan and pal of the Mara family The Great Roger Goodell Himself Live And In Person will find some reason to disallow the consideration of any cold weather site other than NY.

shogunassasin30 says:Nov 29, 2012 8:53 AM

When i think of Mile High Stadium and even the current stadium, I think of the Broncos. It’s like Lambeau and The Packers. It would be just weird to me if 2 teams other than the Broncos are playing in that stadium.

I’m sure i’m in the minority, but when you host one of the worlds largest events, the product (the game itself) should be played in perfect conditions. Hell, i’m not even a fan of stupid domes either. Nothing is better than natural outdoor grass like the Rose Bowl, San Diego, Miami, or even Tampa. And for whatever it’s worth, those stadiums look the best on TV. Absolutely can’t stand that carpet look that Dallas and New Orleans has.

I think its great idea, frankly im trired of the superdome, Miami and Jacksonville getting to host the game. Is there a site that has hosted more suoerbowl games then the superdome. Honestly I dont know Im asking, but it seems lately they have it a lot.

fringetastic says:Nov 29, 2012 9:05 AM

I’m glad there is this movement to allow the game to be played outdoors – even if it is cold! I hate that this one game has been coddled.

It would be my luck that the Jags would finally turn it around and make it. Then I’d have to sit in a blizard, at least I’d have my trees.

robf2010 says:Nov 29, 2012 9:24 AM

The Ice Bowl in Green Bay had the gutsiest 4th and goal call of all time and all anyone talks about is the frozen tundra. The last thing any NFL fan should be talking about in the time leading up to the Super Bowl, in the time during the Super Bowl, and in the years after the Super Bowl … IS THE WEATHER. All Super Bowls should be played indoors.

Denver would be a fantastic Super Bowl city. Even if a blizzard hits, unlike Dallas, we know how to move snow and get the city moving again and in short order.

Everything would be centrally located, from hotels to the stadium to the NFL Experience at the massive Convention Center. The city has lots of hotel rooms (it hosted the Democratic Convention without a hitch in 2008).

By the late decade when the game would be here, the massive public transportation system would have been updated, including light rail from the airport to downtown.

The weather in February is usually cool and clear (the snowiest months are March, followed by November). And there is a lot to do, and it’s easy to get around the city.

It’s a no-brainer to have the game here.

abninf says:Nov 29, 2012 9:52 AM

I want to see a Superbowl in the coldest, worst conditions possible. See which team is the toughest mentally. That’s football.

acanniv says:Nov 29, 2012 9:53 AM

Snow doesn’t stick around long in the Denver area because the sun shines practically every day. Average daily high in February is 49 degrees. Sure it’s brisk, but its not like it’s freezing cold all the time.

unionjack1776 says:Nov 29, 2012 10:03 AM

Football was made to be played in the elements and I fail to see why the Super Bowl would be an exception. Let Denver have a Super Bowl, hell, let every team have one in their home stadium. I feel that the Super Bowl should just be awarded to every team on a rotational basis. Since every team would only get it host it every 32 years you can bet that they’d make their chance spectacular at every turn!

jelliot1978 says:Nov 29, 2012 10:06 AM

The further north you go, the more snow is needed to ‘cripple’ the city. If Southern cities such as Atlanta get hit by a rare storm that lays 2-3 inches of snow it is more damaging to them then if Denver gets hit by a foot. Why? Because Denver expects a fair amount of snow and has the resources, ie plows and salt trucks, to handle it whereas Atlanta doesn’t have those resources readily available because it is rare. I spoke to a northern lady living in Atlanta last year (maybe the prior year) when they shut the city down for a few days because of a freak storm that hit them. She was from Detroit and found it amusing that the mild storm in a Detroit winter was so disruptive in Atlanta.

Now ice is a different animal as it can do more harm than snow. This is where Denver is better then NY/NJ as their winter precipitation is more likely to be snow whereas NY/NJ can hover around the freezing mark and have wintery mixes of snow, sleet, rain which make for more hazardous conditions.

I personally think the SB should be open to all cities that can support it. While I would love to see a SB at Lambau I don’t know enough about the surrounding area. Could they support the game? Or would it be like Jacksonville where there were a lot of complaints? Major cities like Chicago, NY, Philly, DC all have infrastructure in place to handle an event like the SB and all should get to host one. The SB brings in a lot of local revenue and all cities should get a chance to improve their region by hosting this.

@eagleswoot
North Jersey getting snow every year or two? Didn’t they just get blanketed 2 years ago with several large snowfalls? Doesn’t North Jersey average 15-30 inches a year? Ever hear of nor’easters?

geo91 says:Nov 29, 2012 11:53 AM

If a ground and pound team played a high powered throwing offense in a snowy Super Bowl they have a huge advantage. Just bounce it between Indianapolis, Detroit, a stadium in Florida and a warm west coast location. At least it’s spread across America that way

Being from Denver, I want to provide a little insight here. It hardly ever snows on game days here. How many times have you watched a Broncos game and its actually snowing? It may make for a colder Super Bowl, but it would be highly unlikely it were actually snowing

@eaglesw00t Your comment may be the most ignorant insight on this board. Apparently you have lived in two places to which you neither understand the climate and averages of both.

If you really lived in Denver and think it is a city with nothing going on then you are tragically dull.

colofan8 says:Nov 29, 2012 2:19 PM

If you actually live in Denver or have visited for an extended period, you would know we don’t get a ton of snow in the city and even when we do it’s gone within a couple of days. Denver is a top 10 city for most days of sunshine in a year. To the army guy, I’m proud you serve this country but if you think Denver got a lot of snow last year you must be from Hawaii….

People act like Denver is up near the ski resorts..

starderup says:Nov 29, 2012 2:24 PM

It’s true that Atlanta is nowhere near as prepared for an ice/snow storm as the Northeast, but I’d wait and see how the New Jersey thing works out before going whole hog on the frozen tundra thing.

cospgsmadman says:Nov 29, 2012 3:06 PM

Although it’s not February now It is in the mid-60s here today. I have lived in Colorado just about my whole life, It doesn’t snow that much unless you are in the Rockies.I have relative that still believe I ski and was born with snow shoes on.